Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!

View

Discuss

Share

We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).

With the end of the year approaching, the Gnome Foundation has put together an appeal for help. You can also just head over to Gnome.org to contribute directly - and this year, they become a charity organization, meaning that contributions for US citizens will be tax deductions. Yay, tax deductions!

The FSF promotes the development of free software -- particularly the GNU operating system and its GNU/Linux variants. The FSF helps to spread awareness of the ethical and political issues of software freedom.

And when looking at the detail here here [gnome.org], it speaks nothing of FSF support. So I guess an uninformed guess would be "no, not for Gnome"

You're calling somebody a communist and acusing them of being extremist in the same breath?

QT has the potential to make commercial development on Linux more restrictive than commercial development on Windows.

Yes, commercial interests don't have to use QT if they don't want to, and yes today it is only $2k per developer, and yes, you can develop GPL apps and make money off them... but

The QT commercial license can change

You don't have to use a GPL-ish license to develop free software under Windows, why should QT force you to do so under Linux?

Forking into a different toolkit for commercial development is a detriment to free software

So I guess if you really want, GTK can be used for:

Apps with BSD and similar licenses

Commercial internally developed applications for which funding would never be approved, and GPLing them would be out of the question

Shareware

In short... anything which would not get commercial licensing and would not use a GPL-ish license.

There is a reason the LGPL exists. There is a reason why a library struggling for wide acceptance in Linux should not be using the GPL (or QPL for that matter) for distribution.

The only reasons to accept the restrictions of QT are 1. you con't care in the slightest about non GPL-ish development (even BSD-ish), or 2. you think that having a slick, easy to use, free library NOW is more important than anything else.

But for those two reasons, you might as well just develop under Windows. There are fewer restrictions.

The only reasons to accept the restrictions of QT are 1. you con't care in the slightest about non GPL-ish development (even BSD-ish), or 2. you think that having a slick, easy to use, free library NOW is more important than anything else.

That sounds practical enough.

But for those two reasons, you might as well just develop under Windows. There are fewer restrictions.

I don't think that carries over quite as well; I use Unix based operating systems because they're of better workmanship overall and possess a greater amount of functionality which I like.

It is perhaps ironic that the GPL is more favorable to commercialization of a product than QT's licensing strategy is, isn't it?:P

Were I to contribute, what percentage of my contribution would go towards paying people to write publicly licensed software? Ok, none? No sweat: what part of my contribution would go towards people who are architecting, in a credible, informed, politically neutral way, publicly licensed software? What, none?

Ok, now how much of my money is going to fund a PR engine and admin engine that benefits, almost exclusively, a few for-profit businesses? Pretty much all of it?

The money contributed to the GNOME Foundation for this appeal goes directly to helping us hold GUADEC, and importantly, to fly hackers over who otherwise couldn't go. I was a beneficiary of this support last year, and thus, able to attend GUAD3C in Sevilla (which rocked). I am hugely thankful to the Foundation, and its kind supporters (both corporate and individual) who contributed in this way.

I've been involved in conference organisation before (I was part of the organising team for linux.conf.au [linux.conf.au] in 2001), and I know how much time, effort and ultimately dollars it takes to stage a conference such as this.

Your last comment is an interesting one, because it shows a fundamental misunderstanding about what the GNOME Foundation is all about. It's about GNOME, the project, not about the businesses that contribute. This is one team, not a competition between individual contributors and companies.

We have one person involved in the Foundation who has 'proper' PR qualifications - she used to work for a very major PR company, who, funnily enough, happened to have MS as a customer, but I digress. She is a volunteer, like many of our hackers and contributors, but instead of writing code, she helps us with what a lot of the hackers see as 'dreary PR stuff'.:-)

Have a read of foundation.gnome.org [gnome.org] - I hope it will clear up any misunderstandings you have about the organisation. I know there are a lot of them out there!:-)

Gnome is a cooperative free software project, not owned by any one company. At the same time, it's a commercial free software project: one that figures into the business plans of several companies.

I'm not opposed to free software hackers asking for donations -- I've done it directly myself and indirectly as an FSF employee.

But I am sorely dissapointed that Gnome and other R&D efforts aren't better financially supported by the companies who will profit from them. In effect, we're asked to subsidize those companies through private donations. They have a perfectly good subsidy in the form of R&D tax credits -- let them use that instead of private charity.

How many good free software hackers are currently unemployed (like me)? Yes, I know there's a recession and so forth -- but part of the cure for a recession is for companies to start spending their way out of it. All of the large vendors have money in the bank and growing revenues from free software. A lot of free software R&D jobs could be created, today, speeding up development, and giving those vendors new and better products sooner.

I think you have it a backwards there. Ximian, along with Red Hat and Sun, is one of the main developers of Gnome. Ximian contributes to Gnome by its very existence. Furthermore, the founder of the Gnome project, Miguel de Icaza, is one of the founders of Ximian [ximian.com].And before some ignorant troll pipes up, no, Ximian does not exploit OSS coders by selling someone else's code, they charge for services and a few properitary, in-house-developed products like Connector [ximian.com]. If you want to use Ximian Gnome, and not get their services, you can download [ximian.com] it for free right from their site, as always.

What Ximian, Red Hat, IBM, Sun and many others are proving is that Open Source software is not a business model, it's a tool. You can't just grab a chunk of code and say "alla-ka-business-model!" and make a profit, it's hard work and requires a good business model.

What Open Source software does do for you is change the economics of what a company can offer. It would be impossible for Sun to offer an OS like Solaris for example, while also making a suite of graphics tools, a desktop, compilers, development environments, browsers, office tools, groupware, etc, etc and still make a profit. They've tried many times, but ultimately it just increases the price of their software. Now they're beginning to realize that they can throw a tiny amount of money (by their standards) into Gnome development and get all of the wizzy end-user goodies they want.

They can then pay Ximian to support the parts that they don't know anything about and in the end it costs them a lot less than CDE did and unlike CDE it will continue to be developed and enhanced.

That's one very workable buisiness model. Red Hat's is another (which I think will only ever be workable for a few players in the market). There's IBM's model which is to sell businesses software with a huge suite of services to actually create a revenue stream.

These have all been demonstrated to work. To companies that have relied on selling a few, narowly focused software packages for big money, I say: please don't let the door hit you in the ass on your way out of the market.

Not that it has ever stopped me before but it would be nice if us Canadians could get a tax break too when we contribute to U.S. charities. The other part that sucks is if I give $100.00 Canadian it's about the same as $60.00 U.S.

Canadians can claim tax deductions for donations to US charities up to their US-source income. If you've done any freelance work over the past year, it's quite likely that you'll be able to claim the full deduction.

What if you do not want to donate money, but rather contribute with your work? I don't think any time investment can be tax deductible right now. That would also be pretty hard to track and verify.

Still, that would be an interesting idea, specially to the Open Source community, which relies entirely on its dedicated developers. Sure money could buy you some drones, but they'd be more expensive and much less productive than the Open Source people.

So, do you think there is any way/chance to ever see time donations being tax deductible too?

One way to look at it - you've already forgone the $1000 in revenue, therefore you haven't had to pay taxes on it. Being allowed to deduct the $1000 you didn't make would amount to not paying taxes on it twice.

If you'd been paid a $1000 then turned around and made a $1000 donation, you'd be in the same position - zero tax liability (assuming you do it in the same year so tax rates are the same yada yada yada).

Donating your time shouldn't impact your taxes any differently than charging for your time and giving the money away - and it doesn't under current tax laws.

...shouldn't be the main motivation for giving money to charity (and now one of your favorite open source projects), but nowadays donations and reduced taxes are inextricably connected. A true charitable contribution is giving resources to others out of the spirit of helping them. Any gain made in giving is good, but it shouldn't be the motivation.

Gnome becoming a US-registered charity will probably help raise the amount of money they receive, so that's wonderful. Anybody that likes using open source software should contribute however they can (code, money, reporting bugs, etc).

...shouldn't be the main motivation for giving money to charity (and now one of your favorite open source projects), but nowadays donations and reduced taxes are inextricably connected. A true charitable contribution is giving resources to others out of the spirit of helping them. Any gain made in giving is good, but it shouldn't be the motivation.

If the government would reduce (eliminate!) my tax burden, I'd gladly give my hard-earned money to charitable institutions. It won't. Therefore, to give me an incentive to give away even more of my money (and it is my money, not the government's), they should at least give let me deduct that amount from my taxable income. Preferably, they'd do even more, but that's highly unlikely.

Donating your time or skills is all well and good, except that when you have to work to make ends meet, your free time becomes precious. I'd rather spend what little free time I have on me first, and then on charity if there's any left. Add to that all of the charity organizations that publicly state that they'd rather have monetary contributions than contributions of time, and it becomes even less likely that I would donate my time. So, that leaves giving money, and as far as I'm concerned the government takes too damn much of that already. There's nothing left for charities.

What he means is that they "became a tax-deductible organization this year," so any deductions made right now are deductible (save your receipts!).

The letter seems a little vague to me, though:

With the help of private donations, the foundation will be able to fulfill more requests from hackers for travel subsidies.

Blanket pleas for donations to a decent cause will usually bring in money, but what will really bring in donations is specifics as to what the money will be used for and how much they need.

How much do they generally subsidize travel expenses? How many people come? What service is the conference to the developers/hackers that can't be provided otherwise? Why does it have to be held in Dublin, Ireland?

There are of course answers to those questions, but if Gnome really wants my money, then Tim and the rest of the team are going to have to provide more details. Until then, I'm skeptical.

Well, tax-exempt non-profit under 501(c)(3), at any rate, which covers organisations other than those that are humanitarially charitable in intent. I'm not sure that I'd class Gnome Foundation [gnome.org] quite in that catagory.

I agree. It's helpful to think about what endeavors and motivations constitute a charity.

Until 50-100 years ago, the word "charity" retained its original meaning of "love", as in 1 Cor. 13:13 (KJV). As charities have strayed from the biblical mandates of charity (love), the meaning of charity has been diluted to the point where almost any non-profit organization can become eligible for charity status. Even ones funneling money to Al Qaeda [washtimes.com].

What is the purpose of traditional charities like the Red Cross and the Salvation Army? Answer: To LOVE.

Then He will say to those on his left, "Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me,

I was a programmer and you did not subsidize my hacking projects." (based on Matt. 25:31-46, modified)

Realizing that the Bible is the reason for the proliferation of charities in the Western world, the development of free warez doesn't quite fit.

I think the Gnome Foundation is a good thing, but it's not a charity. To be specific, it's not part of the core of what charity is. It's somewhere out there in the periphery of charity -- beyond the aiding of primary needs, secondary needs, tertiary+ needs, primary wants, secondary wants... like Pioneer 10 [slashdot.org] -- yes, it's in the solar system, but it's waaay out there.

if a software group needs to make an "appeal for help", obviously something is wrong either with the software or the management!

Just look at Gnome's competitor KDE. KDE is still free software, but by having a clean UI and using less resources, it has become the standard linux desktop interface. It's also featured as the default UI in most distro's such as in Red Hat's Linux 8. We don't see KDE group asking for help and donations!

Personally, I don't put my money into what I see as inferior companies.

At one end, Redhat has finally made profits thanks to its Advanced Server edition which comes bundled with Oracle. And here we have Gnome which accepts donations, and makes those tax deductable. These are 2 organizations, essentially working to promote the same technology... but going about it differently. I guess, KDE will fall somewhere in the middle.
Whatever, OpenSource is on its way.

I don't care if it's for a conference or pizza and beer - it's enough for me that they asked. I'll hand them fifty bucks, no problem (and I just did). I'm not hurting right now, and I've had a hell of a lot of value out of GNOME.

Please note, you people saying "what about the starving children," that I am doing this in ADDITION to other charitable donations, thanks very much. I'm hardly snatching money from the mouths of the innocent to hand it over to pale and chubby programmers.

If you don't want to give them money, fair enough. Don't. You get that right with Free Software, you know? It's not like they figured out a way to make you pay for their products, even if you don't want them.

I agree the bitching is misplaced. I'm happy to "donate" to free software projects I'm fond of, I buy OpenBSD and Slackware CDs, for example, and would be happy to just send cash if a decent, non-Paypal, poor box system could be created. As for charitable status, which seems to be the major source of controversy, the fact that something else is more worthy doesn't stop something in itself being worthy. I'll continue to funnel cash to both cancer research and NPR, I don't see any reason for me to drop the latter simply because good quality free radio programming is less important than saving lives. Both enrich humanity without being, in a meaningful sense of the word, profitable commercial projects, and both would suffer if forced to adopt a commercial model.

That said, GNOME is just about the last project I'd donate to. I'm not happy about the direction it's going in, and haven't seen any evidence they'll ever produce anything I'd be happy using. Some projects you support, some you don't.

"and this year, they become a charity organization, meaning that contributions for US citizens will be tax deductions. Yay, tax deductions!"

Great so now my tax dollars are effectively paying for Gnome, since anyone who deducts their donations is taking money out of the tax pool. Thanks a lot for forcing me to pay for your software. What a bunch of communists.

And take this anyway you want. What if GNOME were to "go under"?(not that that's even really possible since the code is free) Since most distros with the notable exception of Redhat have standardized on KDE, having Redhat switch to KDE would then for the first time have Linux as a whole presenting a unified desktop to the world. For the first time, with the exception of some difference in the naming of menus, you would be able to sit down in front of any of the big desktop distros and see the same desktop. I'm not saying I want that to happen, other then the desire to see ANY unified desktop, but still one does wonder where GNOME would be without Redhat. Of course this doesn't mean fluxbox users can't switch to that, but the thing I've heard year after year from the big commercial desktop vendors is that beyond being too small a market, the linux desktop from the outside seems too fragmented. There's not doubt in my mind that having all the big desktop vendors finally on one desktop would be a step in the right direction towards more widespread linux adoption. Remember I'm not talking about restricting choice to run another WM, so save your "choice is good" speechs for someone else. Most people who use linux want to see it used on a more widespread basis. Having a unified look is one the first steps.

hey those Danm bums can get jobs, Like me. Now if you don't like givin' open source programers a bit of cash and gettin' a tax deduction then don't do it. But I feel that they are a valid charity because they previded a free public service with-out goverment funding or ADs. The other thing is I don't if they will get any money for themselfs but use most of it on more testing hardware and meeting in meat space.

Why? By what criteria? Help a cancer victim and they'll die eventually anyway, help a famine victim and they might last until the next famine... but help get free code created and it has the capacity to last and help unlimited numbers of people for a long time. Help develop software that can spare the governments in the third world from spending money on proprietary software and they'll have more money over to spend on fighting famine. Help develop an equal playing field in the IT industry and developing countries will have a chance to create an indigenous industry without paying IP taxes to the rich world.

Worthwhile depends on your point of view. You may get a warm fuzzy feeling from helping someone more directly. If you do, I suggest you work at a homeless shelter or some similar charity, where you can see and touch the people you help.

Me, I prefer being charitable for more longrange goals. In the long run I regard it as more worthwhile.

He commented that helping cancer and famine victims was not as worthwhile as helping Gnome because those people would probably die anyway. I directly addressed that argument, so quite accusing me of being inflammatory or creating red-herring arguments.

Your comment about "suffer and die" is inflammatory. The poster made the valid observation that many charities don't have a long-term benefit -- they just tide people over so they can suffer a little longer.

Education and skills are more valuable in the long run than a soup-kitchen approach to helping people. Teach them to support themselves and they don't need your help anymore.

Helping third-world nations avoid spending their meager finances on corporations software is a good thing for the world society.

No, it is not. The other poster is the one that brought up cancer and famine victims dying anyway even if they received assistance.

The poster made the valid observation that many charities don't have a long-term benefit -- they just tide people over so they can suffer a little longer.

So would you rather die from pancreatic cancer in horrible agony, or would you rather that a charitable organization provided you with morphine to ease your pain?

Helping third-world nations avoid spending their meager finances on corporations software is a good thing for the world society.

There is already free software available. It was developed without the benefit of tax-deductible contributions. It is already good enough. A better version of Gnome is simply unimportant in this context.

Please, tell me what improvements are needed to Gnome before it is good enough to serve the needs of a third-world government.

Want to help third-world countries? Then develop text-based software that will run on 80386-based PCs with 1MB of RAM and a 120MB hard disk. Don't try to convince me that using tax dollars to help develop something that Sun will bundle with Solaris on high-end workstations is going to help third-world countries.

So would you rather die from pancreatic cancer in horrible agony, or would you rather that a charitable organization provided you with morphine to ease your pain?

Having watched my grandfather suffer from pancreatic cancer for almost a year (though the doctors originally gave him 3 months at the outside), I'd be far more inclined to self-terminate than expect society to pay for hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of treatment and pain killers so I could selfishly cling to life for a couple more agonized months.

Please, tell me what improvements are needed to Gnome before it is good enough to serve the needs of a third-world government.

How about you tell me what features are being worked on that they don't need? Gnome is solid and relatively stable, but it is not "complete." It needs better documentation, better integration (e.g. file extension/application binding defaults), and most of the sub-projects are still far from completely functional.

What would be the point of "developing" text-based software for 386-based PCs? The machines being donated by corps to the third world are typically Pentium or PII systems they'd been using until a year or two ago. Those shipped by my current client site were PII350s with 256MB RAM, 10G HDDs, 1280x1024 capable displays, with 10baseT ethernet, SB16 compatible sound support, mouse, keyboard, and monitor. The cheap PCs sold in India for those with a limited budget are even more powerful than that.

Asking anyone in the third world to try to educate themselves using 386 based machines as you describe would be futile -- the skills required would be hopelessly outdated before they even turned the machine on. They don't need to learn how to type -- they need to be able to replace modern commercial products that leech their budgets.

What would be the point of "developing" text-based software for 386-based PCs? The machines being donated by corps to the third world are typically Pentium or PII systems they'd been using until a year or two ago.

Because that is not what the majority of machines in the third world are.

Asking anyone in the third world to try to educate themselves using 386 based machines as you describe would be futile -- the skills required would be hopelessly outdated before they even turned the machine on.

PCs in third world countries are used to do work in government offices, not educate people in villages without electricity. 99.9% of people in third world countries have never even touched a computer and the vast majority of them will die without ever using one.

I just checked with a bunch of third world countries. It turns out that they would benefit more from food, medicine, and education than from a better version of Gnome.

You know, you miss the point in so many levels, it is hard to adress it, really.

I am Mexican. Mexico is a developing 3rd world country, and a lot of the more promising government projects are software industry development based, like this Project to give a boost to multimedia and animation industry in Jalisco [mural.com] (spanish only, sorry). Just what do you think we are? a bunch of freaking retards? There IS industry and education in here! It's not all about helping out the extremely poor, it's about helping society and industry develop so there is more cash flow, education and yes, more programs to help those in need. That said, open source initiatives DO help. A lot. And a bunch of the people involved in open source projects are from third world countries (incidentally, Miguel de Icaza is Mexican).

Please note, too, that foreign backing is not all there is to charity. A country has to develop its own strenghts and help itself. I think we're on our way there. Politics and economic situations are a complicated thing, and broad statements like the ones you make are usually off the mark.--

I have visited Mexico on several occasions and while there are desparately poor regions, overall Mexico is probably better described as a 2nd world country.

Just what do you think we are? a bunch of freaking retards?

Not at all. Nor was I truly addressing the issues of developing countries with real economies. I was more thinking about true, destitute, no-food, no-potable-water, no-healthcare, millions-dying-of famine and disease, etc. third-world countries like Sudan.

Donations of computer hardware and software to projects like the one that you mentioned should be tax-deductible. I am completely in favor of that. But the Gnome foundation is simply too-far-removed from that scenario for me to be comfortable. Think about it: they want donations so that they can fund conferences and other peripheral activities associated with enhancing Gnome. What does that really translate to in aid to the less-fortunate and to developing countries? It's not like they are developing software to help farmers with crop rotation, or to provide medical information as an expert system in remote regions. It's a highly-polished GUI and I find it unlikely that further tax-subsidized tweaking will make a lot of difference to third-world countries. It is also a lot different that a project to teach computer skills and build an industry in a developing country.

Rereading through some of the posts, it struck me that the comment about my grandfather's pancreatic cancer could imply that he was being selfish by clinging to life.

While he lived far longer than the doctors expected, it wasn't due to a lot of treatment. They tried chemo briefly, but did not continue when it had no useful effect. His last six months were spent in bed, sleeping 12-16 hours a day as the morphine knocked him out. He lived as long as he did because he wanted to, not because of some miraculous expensive life-stretching procedures.

I've been called worse than maniac -- no one has ever accused me of being sane. *g*

Read the original story -- the donations are to support the conference, not the developers. The developers do the work for free or are sponsored the companies they work for. Whatever gave you the idea that the Gnome (or any open source) developers don't have "real jobs"?

I made it up. Actually, I considered what I have read about the government of Sudan and their finances and realized a couple of things:

1. Their government is very small relative to the number of people in the country.2. Computers are rare even in their government offices.

If the Sudan government could put Linux on every one of its computers, that would save them about $200 per computer, depending on what MS OS they might use.

They can already. Mandrake, for instance, is ready to go. That is, providing they have the hardware to support it. Many of their computers are not nearly that modern, though.

That adds up just as quickly as small $20 donations from generous souls like yourself.

It doesn't really because most third-world countries have so few computers relative to the number of citizens.

Plus, what we are talking about here is improvements to an already polished GUI. How many changes are necessary before you believe that it is usable? I thought it was pretty darned good already. Not only that, how much will the donations stimulate the development?

When I think of all the hundreds of thousands of people who benefit the hard work donated by open-source developers, the idea of a self-righteous liberal prig complaining about leveraging the tax code as it was intended is revolting.

The idea that there are people out there who think only their pet projects deserve assistance is not my idea of a real uplifting message right before Christmas. (And if you object to my calling it Christmas, go to work that day and take your religious holiday off instead.)

When I think of all the hundreds of thousands of people who benefit the hard work donated by open-source developers

Who cares? Lots of people benefit from the work of Intel and AMD, too, but it doesn't mean that they are morally entitled to tax-deductible contributions.

...a self-righteous liberal prig complaining about leveraging the tax code as it was intended is revolting.

It's easy to be self-righteous when you are right. But that's a feeling that you are unlikely to enjoy any time soon. Oh, and I'm damned proud to be a liberal -- thanks for noticing.

As to your name calling, I'll respond in kind:

I don't give a damn about what some right-wing, borrow-and-spend, self-centered, pompous ass like you has to say about charities and the tax code. Your kind lacks the moral compass to make that sort of judgement.

The idea that there are people out there who think only their pet projects deserve assistance is not my idea of a real uplifting message right before Christmas.

You lack the ability to differentiate between a deserving charity and a bunch of self-indulgent computer programmers. I do not. I don't need to assume that every organization from the Ku Klux Klan to Habitat for Humanity is equally deserving. I can look at what the organizations do to determine which ones are more deserving.

What do tax deductions to charitable organizations have to do with profitable corporations? What corporations benefit from supporting a Gnome conference? Is Sun getting a free display at the conference? HP? IBM? Who?

No one. Your reference to AMD and Intel is nothing but a red herring intended to inflame anyone with an anti-corporate axe to grind.

It's easy to be self-righteous when you're self-deluded into thinking your way is the only way. Fortunately for the rest of society, other viewpoints are not only allowed, but encouraged and even supported by the openness of the tax laws.

Somewhere you seem to have gotten the idea that "charity" means "socially responsible." Charity is just giving to help when you aren't required to and don't expect a direct benefit back. Your "morales" are irrelevant.

BTW, if you were offended by the "name calling", reread your own post -- I just parodied your own statement from the flip side.

What do tax deductions to charitable organizations have to do with profitable corporations?

In this case, the tax-deductible contributions are funding the development of a product that is sold by Sun, RedHat, and others.

What corporations benefit from supporting a Gnome conference? Is Sun getting a free display at the conference? HP? IBM? Who?

Every corporation who sells Gnome as part of a package. Every corporation that uses Gnome benefits from the further development.

No one.

Wrong. See the above.

BTW, if you were offended by the "name calling", reread your own post -- I just parodied your own statement from the flip side.

I did reread my post (at your suggestion). What I found was "self-indulgent computer programmers." "Self-indulgent" is not a horrible insult. It simply means "indulging one's appetites, desires, etc., freely."

You, on the other hand, felt the need to refer to me as a "self-righteous liberal prig". There is no way that "self-righteous" or "prig" could be considered anything other than insulting and excessively so, at that. Liberal? Well, I'm happy with that, though I'm sure that you meant it in an insulting manner.

Funny -- I felt every bit as offended at your "self-indulgent" comment. I take pride in my code, make a good living with it, and hardly feel "indulgent" when I contribute to the community through code or testing.

Who cares? Lots of people benefit from the work of Intel and AMD, too, but it doesn't mean that they are morally entitled to tax-deductible contributions.

Intel and AMD don't give their product and source code away for FREE.

You lack the ability to differentiate between a deserving charity and a bunch of self-indulgent computer programmers. I do not. I don't need to assume that every organization from the Ku Klux Klan to Habitat for Humanity is equally deserving. I can look at what the organizations do to determine which ones are more deserving.

You lack the understanding of what this particular charity does. Gnome is an open source GUI for Linux, which makes Linux easier to use, which creates more Linux users, which helps to further the technology of humankind without secluding that technology from the masses. All for free. Gnome is a whole lot more than just "a bunch of self-indulgent computer programmers." In addition, it is a technology that helps improve the technology (Linux) that the internet is reliant upon by attracting users to Linux and making it easier to use. If you don't know what Open Source is, I suggest you read Eric Raymond's book [amazon.com] before you go denouncing Open Source organizations as charities.

If you don't want to donate to Gnome, by all means donate to what ever charity you find worthy. But don't call Gnome an undeserving charity just because it doesn't feed starving children in Africa.

Is that what's on that Mandrake system over in the corner of my office? Don't talk down to me.

which helps to further the technology of humankind without secluding that technology from the masses.

Please! Now you are just getting grandiose. The primary beneficiaries of the Gnome foundation's work are companies that sell products that incorporate Gnome and rich kids who like to play with it. Most computers in third-world countries are hard-pressed to run Windows 3.1, much less a GUI like Gnome.

If you don't know what Open Source is, I suggest you read Eric Raymond's book [amazon.com] before you go denouncing Open Source organizations as charities.

I was releasing open source software in the early 1980s, so don't lecture me.

But don't call Gnome an undeserving charity just because it doesn't feed starving children in Africa.

Why? I judge how deserving a charity is by how much they improve the lives of those they purport to help and by how much those people needed help. Curing river blindness or fighting famine seems a lot more important than making Gnome into an even nicer GUI.

When I think of all of the worthy charities that help the less-fortunate, the idea of a bunch of self-indulgent computer programmers taking advantage of our tax code like this is revolting.

Ok.... where do I start? First off, what makes you think that the GNOME project, or any free software project does not help the less fortunate. The GNOME project, along with the rest of GNU, is constantly being deployed in less developed countries. This helps provide education on computer use and programming skills to people who otherwise couldn't afford the expensive software. The fact of the matter is education is the key to break out of poverty. GNOME, as part of GNU provides this.

How the hell is any free software project self-indulgent? Maybe the feeling of skill and greatness when you submit a patch for a bug fix, but self-indulgent what are you talking about? These "self-indulgent" programmers provided me with a desktop environment, and I have scarcely given a thing back.(sorry I'm poor too.)

The people who make the GNOME project possible don't see a return short of feeding themselves, just like the Salvation Army, or the American Cancer Society. They clear their overhead and donate their product and services to anyone who needs them, just like any legitimate charity.

Because it is a hobby for those involved. They do it for personal fulfillment.

And what exactly is a charity? Do you not donate to a charity to get some form of personal gratification for helping those in need, by giving some of your excess to further some goal that is dear to you?

While, in principle, I agree to you that Gnome is hardly my idea of a charitable organization I don't see any reason to criticize their work or call it, in so many words, a fraud of our tax code. I have seen more worthless charities than I care to see and Gnome is hardly an abuse of the current tax code. They donate their work to the public at large to be used however they want to use it and accept donations for the public. Is it traditional? No. Is it still a non-profit organization? Hell yes. Are you under some sort of odd obligation to support it? No. No one cares, if you want to support it do if you don't believe in supporting it don't.

Legitimate charities do not invest tax-deductible contributions to develop products that are resold by big business.

In so many words, fool. What do you call charities that accept sponorship of big companies? Advertisement plain and simple. This charity function funded in part by blah blah. Are they not, using your defination, simply 'selling themselves out' by allowing for their image/goodwill/goodworks to be used to advertise a business and tie to it? Ah but since they do, what YOU define as, good works that is ok? I say that by producing a legitemate, free, alternative to windows Gnome does many good works by allowing for a free desktop enviroment that can be used by any organization that can better spend the $200 it would normally spend on a os/GUI on more important things. In that sense Gnome is indeed a charity since the 200$ it would cost for, say, a windows XP liscene can be better spent feeding children/building houses/curing aids whatever.

Are they not, using your defination, simply 'selling themselves out' by allowing for their image/goodwill/goodworks to be used to advertise a business and tie to it?

No. The charity work that they do still benefits the needy. Suppose FedEx sponsors Habitat for Humanity. Both win. Habitat for humanity gets much-needed money and FedEx gets good press.

That's far different than Gnome taking tax-deductible donations and then creating a GUI that is sold by Sun/RedHat/etc.

I say that by producing a legitemate, free, alternative to windows Gnome does many good works by allowing for a free desktop enviroment that can be used by any organization that can better spend the $200 it would normally spend on a os/GUI on more important things.

Okay, suppose that the government of Sudan suddenly got all of their software for free. How much money would that save on a per-capita basis? This may come as a shock, but there is not a computer on every desk in Sudan. Libraries are not found in every city with Internet access readily available. There are a handful of computers in most third-world countries and whether the government buys $200 operating systems or gets them for free has no bearing on the lives of the millions of people that live in those countries.

What helps third-world countries is software designed to run on old, slow computers that lack the memory, hard drive capacity, and speed to run things like Gnome.

For one I am an active member of save sub-saharan orphans [savetheorphans.org] and am not a fool when it comes to the problems facing third world countries. What I take objection to is people who automatically assume they are *Right* and that whatever person x is doing is *Wrong* like you are doing with this Gnome business. Let's take a look at your assertation that somehow what Gnome is doing by *shock* allowing it's product to be sold by SUn/Red Hat/etc is somehow wrong.

No. The charity work that they do still benefits the needy. Suppose FedEx sponsors Habitat for Humanity. Both win. Habitat for humanity gets much-needed money and FedEx gets good press.

No. The charity work that they do still benefits the needy. Suppose FedEx sponsors Gnome. Both Win. Gnome gets much-needed money to further develop a needed free GUI and Fedex gets good press.

THere is *no* difference between the two. None, except that one is more traditional so, according to your view, is more *right* somehow. It's a narrowminded view of the world.

Let's assume that, out of a population of 37,090,298 (Cia world factbook) 1/10 of 1 percent have a computer - that's 37,090 computers. Which, btw, is far, far below the actual number since the reported number of internet users is 50,000. At any rate if they would switch entirely to OSS they would save, at 200$ per computer, 7,418,000$ dollars. That's 7 million dollars that quite a big chunk of change. I would also point out that Gnome minimum system requirements are quite a bit less than the latest version of windows xp. I could also point out that Gnome will continue to be supported far longer than windows xp.

Alas, I would have more to say but I have to finish writing a 6 page paper due in 6 hours. Good day sir.

Let's take a look at your assertation that somehow what Gnome is doing by *shock* allowing it's product to be sold by SUn/Red Hat/etc is somehow wrong.

It's not wrong and I never said that it was. What I see as wrong is treating Gnome as some kind of charity when they primary beneficiaries of their work are major, for-profit corporations.

No. The charity work that they do still benefits the needy. Suppose FedEx sponsors Gnome. Both Win. Gnome gets much-needed money to further develop a needed free GUI and Fedex gets good press.

NO NO NO NO NO!!!!

Let's make it simple:

1. You decide to donate $200 to charity.

2. Because they are now tax-deductible, you donate $100 to Gnome and the other $100 to the charity that would have gotten the whole $200 had Gnome not been tax-deductible.

3. The Feds give you $30 off of your taxes for your donation to Gnome.

4. Gnome puts the $100 towards improving Gnome.

5. Sun, RedHat, and Mandrake sell the improved Gnome, making millions of dollars.

6. The improvements to Gnome do not, in any way, significantly affect whether it is appropriate for use by a third-world government.

7. Where it is adopted by third world governments, computer software makes up such a tiny percentage of their budget that the savings is insignificant and does nothing to improve the lives of the citizens.

No, it is not. Many people earmark certain dollar figures and percentages for charity. I know some of those people personally. You and your wife don't do it that way? That's fine. But there are more people in the world than you and your wife.

And your statement that gnome and other OS projects shouldn't be charities may have some merit, because they aren't what one thinks of in terms of traditional charities,

Thanks for saying that.

but I and others think they are worthwhile and may some day help in a small way to make the world a better place.

My concern is that the "help" is too small to justify making Gnome a tax-deductible charity.

Get over yourself.

I have tried. Really I have. But I am so damned impressive, intelligent, and knowledgeable that I just can't.

I have tried. Really I have. But I am so damned impressive, intelligent, and knowledgeable that I just can't.

*LOL* This discussion would have been ever so much more entertaining in person. You are tenacious, persistent, and firm in your beliefs. Fine fuel for a fun after-meal discussion group. (Surely you didn't think I had anything against you personally just because I disagree with your opinion on the current subject!)

*LOL* This discussion would have been ever so much more entertaining in person. You are tenacious, persistent, and firm in your beliefs. Fine fuel for a fun after-meal discussion group. (Surely you didn't think I had anything against you personally just because I disagree with your opinion on the current subject!)

My apologies for taking things too personally in the first place. I, too, think that many of the discussions on here would be a lot more civilized and fun in-person. I guess the anonymous cowards would just have to show up with bags over their heads.

That's far different than Gnome taking tax-deductible donations and then creating a GUI that is sold by Sun/RedHat/etc.

You can go to any number of websites, download the Gnome source, and build your own. The fact that someone else provides the service of doing the download and build for you (e.g. RedHat, SuSE, Mandrake, et. al.) doesn't make it "their" product.

You really like to focus on that misconception that the donations support the programmers who contribute. In fact you are so completely enamoured of that misconception that I'm going to just "walk away" at this point -- I have a feeling I'd have an easier time converting a Southern Baptist preacher to Hinduism than convincing you to let go of that fantasy.

I kind of wish Sun weren't planning to use Gnome, as it would make it clearer to you that this whole business has nothing to do with supporting corporations.

Say I take a few million dollars (assuming I had it), and set up a park with some investments to fund maintenance of the park. No one is charged admission, and everyone is free to roam around whether they be stock broker or homeless bum. If some corporation chooses to have their annual picnic in that same park, is it now "supporting" business?

Of course not! It is still open to all, used by all, and is still not costing anyone admission.

The fact that some corp like Sun has chosen to use the "park" provided by Gnome does not make it a corporate pawn -- it just means another member of the community is accepting the offer to use the facilities.

While you may view free software projects as a "hobby", many of those who work on the projects believe in the good of what they are doing every bit as much as you do when you contribute to the charity of your choice. While there is a significant degree of ego and pride involved in contributing quality code, it is no more "self-indulgent" than your feeling of having "done good" when you write that donation check.

I don't want anyone to be able to take a tax deduction for giving to Gnome. It diverts money away from worthy charities.

By what mechanism? Do you assume that anyone who donates to Gnome would otherwise have donated an equal amount to one of your worthy charities? Or do you think that the tax deductions themselves are somehow funded by these charities?

Do you assume that anyone who donates to Gnome would otherwise have donated an equal amount to one of your worthy charities?

I assume that some people would have. If someone donates $100 to Gnome, that's $100 less that they have to donate to other organizations.

Or do you think that the tax deductions themselves are somehow funded by these charities?

What? That's a new one on me.

The tax deduction that you get for donating to Gnome (hypothetically speaking) would be funded by every other taxpayer in the U.S. It is the American taxpayers that fund the deductions. If you get a deduction, the rest of us have to make up for it.

If someone donates $100 to Gnome, that's $100 less that they have to donate to other organizations.

Or $100 less to spend on drugs and prostitutes. Do any evidence, other than your imagined special insight into the motives of others, to support your rather strong claim that giving to Gnome 'diverts money away from worthy charities'.

If you get a deduction, the rest of us have to make up for it.

Nonsense. I'm willing to bet that your tax bill is calculated on your own income, just like everyone elses.

Generally, the kind of people that spend money on drugs and prostitutes are not big donors to charity.

Do any evidence, other than your imagined special insight into the motives of others, to support your rather strong claim that giving to Gnome 'diverts money away from worthy charities'.

My insight is not imagined. I've worked with non-profits and know the psychology and practices of the donors.

Nonsense. I'm willing to bet that your tax bill is calculated on your own income, just like everyone elses.

So you believe that the tax rates are not, in any way, influenced by deductions? You think that every person in the U.S. could double their deductions and the tax rates would not go up? Economics wasn't very big in your school, was it?

On the subject of tax deductability, the GNOME Foundation meets the criteria for section 501(c)(3) (the foundation's work is of public benefit).

You and I both know that organizations like Gnome were not what legislators had in mind when they drafted 501(c)(3). It reminds me of the people that put a port-a-potty on their boat so that they can claim the boat as a residence. There is a difference between ethical and legal.

If you don't feel that it should have tax exempt status, then you should campaign against the law.

Yes, I probably should.

You make it sound like the foundation is trying to trick people in to donating.

I never meant to imply that. What I believe is that the tax-deductible status will cause some people to donate to Gnome rather than to humanitarian causes.

You and I both know that organizations like Gnome were not what legislators had in mind when they drafted 501(c)(3).

Bullshit. It was intended to support non-profit organizations, and it's doing that. The fact that you don't agree with the goals of at least one of those organizations does not make the law or it's intent any less valid.

Bullshit. It was intended to support non-profit organizations, and it's doing that.

No, it's intended to support certain types of non-profit organizations. From the IRS web pages:

The exempt purposes set forth inIRC Section 501(c)(3) are charitable, religious, educational, scientific, literary, testing for public safety, fostering national or international amateur sports competition, and the prevention of cruelty to children or animals. The term charitable is used in its generally accepted legal sense and includes relief of the poor, the distressed, or the underprivileged; advancement of religion; advancement of education or science; erection or maintenance of public buildings, monuments, or works; lessening the burdens of government; lessening of neighborhood tensions; elimination of prejudice and discrimination; defense of human and civil rights secured by law; and combating community deterioration and juvenile delinquency.

I find it hard to see how the development of a snazzy computer interface falls into the intent of the law.

Did you read what you posted? The key relevant items expressly listed as qualifying include:

* advancement of education or science
* lessening the burdens of government

I expected that reply, but I do not believe that further enhancements to Gnome significantly advance education, science, or lessens the burdens of government in any real way.

Since I've had some sleep and am feeling a bit more coherent, I ask that you please hear me out. Linux is available and viable as an OS already. There are articles on Slashdot every week proudly proclaiming that various governments and private corporations are switching to Linux. Were we talking about a situation where Linux was not a viable alternative for pricey commercial software, then I would feel differently about this. But right now, Gnome is simply one of many Linux add-ons and it already works very well. I can't see where enhancements to it will make much difference to those countries and individuals that have a real need for charitable contributions.

As I said in another posting, the money is so far removed from those needing the charity that I'm having trouble with it. We are talking about charitable donations to fund peripheral activities associated with volunteer development and enhancement of a Linux GUI that some third world country might choose to use. That just doesn't stack up next to paying for antibiotics to fight river blindness or the distribution of condoms in AIDS-ravaged countries.

Not very much. How much better off is society since Mozilla 1.2 came out than back when they ran Netscape 4.7? How much better off is society with Office XP than they were with Office 95? How much better off is society with the 2.4 Linux kernel than they were with the 2.0 Linux kernel? Please, quantify it.

Charity to poor trash is merely a waste of resources designed to make the giver feel good.

If you have money, then you are living proof that you can be "trash" without being poor.

It's all a question of scale.How much better off is society if one person lives another few years instead of dying? How much better is the human race if some small village in south africa doesn't get wiped out due to some disease? And so on.

They chose to go that way because it helps getting more people to donate. *Tax Deductable* can be a good incentive.

Yes, but it's an incentive that I feel should be reserved for humanitarian efforts and things that are simply more important than improvements to a GUI for Linux. I don't think that we should be elevating Gnome to the same stature as charities the feed the homeless and those that work to cure tropical diseases (for example).

I think this is up to people to choose. They choose who deserve their money.

And I'm all in favor of that. I fully support your right to give your money to any organization that you want. If you want to donate to Gnome, go for it. If you would prefer to donate to The Salvation Army, that's fine too. You can even donate to the American Nazi Party.

What I object to is the government subsidizing of the donation to Gnome with a tax deduction. While I think that it is wonderful when a charity that directly helps the needy gets that status, I do not feel that Gnome's work rises to that level.

BTW most people don't know what gnome is and a few donations by linux geeks won't change the amount that goes to real charity.

You are probably right.

P.S. I am sorry that you felt the need to mark me as a Slashdot foe because of our difference of opinions. Hopefully, rational discussion of our disagreement will change your mind.